First Anti-Healthy Kids Advertisement Airs

The battle over Healthy Kids, or Measure 50, has officially begun. Two months before the measure goes before voters on November 6th, the RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co. has already begun airing television ads opposing the initiative.

From the Oregonian:

"Oregonians Against the Blank Check," funded by the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, unleashed its first television ad on Wednesday against Measure 50. The measure would increase the tax on a pack of cigarettes by 85 cents, raising an estimated $153 million this two-year budget period for health care for more than 100,000 uninsured children in Oregon.

The statewide ad is a dark and moody piece that paints the proposal as a power grab by HMOs and insurance companies for taxpayer money. Cathy Kaufmann, spokeswoman for the pro-50 "Healthy Kids Oregon" campaign, called the ad "not just misleading, it's full of inaccuracies."

In a separate story, the Oregonian details how far tobacco companies are willing to go to defeat Healthy Kids:

The campaign will be costly chiefly because tobacco companies plan for a spending blitz to try to stop the "Healthy Kids" proposal. Last fall, voters in California and Missouri rejected higher tobacco taxes after opponents unloaded serious money to convince them the tax was unfair and ripe for bureaucratic bungling.

Tobacco companies spent more than $65 million in California to stop a $2.60 increase, and about $6 million to halt an 80-cent increase in Missouri. Both measures failed by 3 percentage points.

Despite a vested self-interest in preventing the tax increase, tobacco companies insist that their motives are pure:

But opponents of the measure argue the dynamics are different this time, with voters being asked to cement the tax into the constitution.

"What are you going to do if this program needs more money or has too much money?" says J. L. Wilson, spokesman for the "Oregonians against the Blank Check," a campaign funded largely by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

"You'll have to ask voters to go through the whole process of changing the tax rate when the Legislature should be able to adjust it on its own."

Aren't you glad that RJ Reynolds is looking out for Oregon taxpayers?

  • Gus Frederick (unverified)

    It's a matter of "Framing." The supporters of BM50 need to FRAME the opponents for what they REALLY are: "Drug Dealers," (and/or supporters there of). Admittedly, a LEGAL drug, but a highly addictive one nevertheless.

  • (Show?)

    I saw that piece last night, and I will say that if I weren't already familiar with the issue and the measure, and especially that the opposition is largely funded by R.J. Reynolds, it would be a highly effective ad. Educating folks on the reality of the measure is going to be key for maintaining support for it.

  • (Show?)

    This is a moral issue and I think you'll hear more and more religious leaders speaking out on behalf of Measure 50

  • Chuck Butcher (unverified)

    So, you accuse RJR of being - what - as dishonest as M50 itself? That takes nerve. Almost as much nerve as it would have taken to have put up an actually fair and correct measure with the same ends, apparently, almost was just short.

    Don't even bother to start with "smoker's costs, blah, blah" because that's not it, it is because you think you can do it this way. A Republican would be proud of this methodology. I ain't one. Ever. For no reason. None.

    BTW your costs nonsense can be trumped easily with other sin tax opportunities & higher costs. Vote numbers are another matter.

  • Sydney Edlund (unverified)

    How does one contact Mr. J. L. Wilson? I would like to call him and ask him, 1) why his group hates children, and 2) why they thinks it's okay to mislead and outright lie to the public. What they're doing goes beyond framing (although I really like the idea of re-terming Big Tobacco as drug dealers): it's time to call a liar a liar.

  • Andy (unverified)

    What does smoking have to do with uninsured kids? You want to raise taxes on cigarettes to stop people form smoking them, that's OK by me, but you want to dress it up in a Mom and Apple Pie cause so people who are a little reluctant to tax other people's sins for fear that their sin is next feel good about voting for it smacks of blatant hucksterism. And remember your sin just might be next.

    In response to Mr. Edlund's post - while you're calling Mr. Wilson, don't forget to call the proprietors of any number of local businesses that cover multiple full-time slots with gangs of part-timers so they don't have to provide benefits, or the rafts of "mom and pop" outfits that are either so poorly managed or so greedy that they can't provide benefits for their workers - we need more minimum wage jobs around here (can anyone say tourism) like we need three holes in the head.

  • acb (unverified)

    It seems quite unfair to charge only smokers for something from which all benefit. If the program is worthwhile, it should be funded by everyone, not just smokers. Just because it is politically easier to dump on smokers and charge them for this program, doesn't make it the right thing to do.

  • vanessa (unverified)

    I am a smoker. I am addicted. I cannot just walk away from this. And I am sick of being punished for having an addiction. When was the last time this state taxed beer??? I drink beer too. But when that gets too expensive, i dont have to. How dare a goverment body take advantage of people that have no choice in quitting. Oh and your stop smoking programs???? Some how, calling someone to have them tell you that you can make it is fruitless. Its a cover up for the programs failure.

  • ellen (unverified)

    Health care is a benifit not an entitlement. I have been told this several times by my employer. I work 40 hours, sometime 50 and the only Health Insurance I get is supplemental NOT magor medical. Money rules, anyone who is born into a poor family has no right to health. Opportunity is only available to those who can afford to buy it.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)


    You may be addicted, but you do have choice. Listen to John Lennon's "Cold Turkey" a few dozen times, then throw those cancer sticks away. If straight up is not your bag, try the patch. Try nicotine gum. Try religion. Try sex. They're all less harmful than cigarettes.


    <h2>I hope you don't believe everything your boss tells you.</h2>
in the news 2007

connect with blueoregon